jrtc27 added inline comments.
================
Comment at: clang/utils/TableGen/RISCVVEmitter.cpp:116
+ D = 1 << 2,
+ ZFH = 1 << 3
+};
----------------
Zfh
================
Comment at: clang/utils/TableGen/RISCVVEmitter.cpp:241
+ case 8:
+ ExpResult = Log2LMUL + 3;
+ break;
----------------
Please be consistent and use Log2 rather than Exp
================
Comment at: clang/utils/TableGen/RISCVVEmitter.cpp:259-260
+
+LMULType &LMULType::operator*=(unsigned RHS) {
+ this->Log2LMUL = this->Log2LMUL + RHS;
+ return *this;
----------------
That's not how multiplication works. This is exponentiation. Multiplication
would be `Log2LMul + log2(RHS)`. Please don't abuse operators like this.
================
Comment at: clang/utils/TableGen/RISCVVEmitter.cpp:325
+ std::string &S = BuiltinStr;
+ if (IsVoid) {
+ S = "v";
----------------
This really needs to be an enum not a bunch of mutually-exclusive booleans,
which I though I suggested in the past?
================
Comment at: clang/utils/TableGen/RISCVVEmitter.cpp:450-451
+ S += "uint";
+ // Vector bool is special case, the formulate is `vbool<N>_t =
+ // MVT::nxv<64/N>i1` ex. vbool16_t = MVT::
+ if (IsBool && isVector())
----------------
Please try and avoid wrapping code across lines
================
Comment at: clang/utils/TableGen/RISCVVEmitter.cpp:624
+ }
+ // Init RISCV_Extensions
+ for (const auto &T : OutInTypes) {
----------------
Blank line
================
Comment at: clang/utils/TableGen/RISCVVEmitter.cpp:685
+ OS << "};\n";
+ OS << "break;\n";
+}
----------------
This is missing indentation?
================
Comment at: clang/utils/TableGen/RISCVVEmitter.cpp:870
+ PrevDef = Def.get();
+ OS << "case RISCV::BI__builtin_rvv_" << Def->getName() << ":\n";
+ }
----------------
Needs indentation?
================
Comment at: clang/utils/TableGen/RISCVVEmitter.cpp:567
+ // Compute type transformers
+ for (char I : Transformer.take_front(Transformer.size() - 1)) {
+ switch (I) {
----------------
craig.topper wrote:
> Can we do Transformer = Transformer.drop_back() right before this loop. That
> take_front code is harder to think about.
Or would it be better as a pop_back in the switch above?
Repository:
rG LLVM Github Monorepo
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D95016/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D95016
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
